Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Well I still really don't see how something can come from nothing.
Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause.
Really I don't think it's even intelligible. What can be meant, for example, by the claim that there is a mathematical probability that nothingness should spawn a region of spacetime "where none existed before?"
It cannot mean that given enough time a region of spacetime would pop into existence at a certain place, since neither place nor time exist apart from spacetime. The notion of some probability of something's coming out of nothing thus seems incoherent.
. A pure potentiality cannot actualize itself. In the case of the universe (including any boundary points), there was not anything physically prior to the initial singularity.4 The potentiality for the existence of the universe could not therefore have lain in itself, since it did not exist prior to the singularity.
Quantum vacuums have no physical particles but are filled with electromagnetic waves.
However, there was NO vacuum casually prior to the bigbang, there was nothing.
the expansion cannot even be visualized from the outside -there being no "outside," just as there is no "before" with respect to the Big Bang
Four of the world's most prominent astronomers described that event in these words:
As Barrow and Tipler emphasize,
I really don't have an hour to watch the vid, I have heard of Lawrence Krauss. He himself, as far as I know, has only had one peer reveiwed paper publiahed which I've not read, but he's constantly cited - usually the author will say "and some Physistics get VERY desperate - see Lawerence Krauss"
Anyway, according to the Bigbang the universe is a closed system but Krauss may be referring to Quantum gravity theory, which defines things differently. So far there is no coherent quantum gravity theory BUT if there is one day it could explain alot.
It;s a theory by Davies. Davies presents a scenario which, he confesses, "
He has reference to a quantum theory of gravity according to which spacetime itself could spring uncaused into being out of absolutely nothing.
While admitting that there is such a theory
However this is misleading. As Davies admits,
But quantum gravity is so poorly understood that the period prior to 10[-43] sec, which this theory hopes to describe
In fact, there seems to be no good reason to think that such a theory would involve the sort of spontaneous becoming ex nihilo which Davies suggests.
But there seems to be nothing in this which suggests the possibility of spontaneous becoming ex nihilo.
IF originally absolutely nothing existed, then why should it be spacetime that springs spontaneously out of the void, rather than, say, hydrogen atoms or even rabbits?
Davies on one occasion seems to answer as if the laws of physics are the controlling factor which determines what may leap uncaused into being:
Your into philosophy so you probably know more then I but to me this seems exceedingly peculiar.
Davies seems to attribute to the laws of nature themselves a sort of ontological and causal status such that they constrain spontaneous becoming.
But the laws of physics do not themselves cause or constrain anything; they are simply propositional descriptions of a certain form and generality of what does happen in the universe.
It is futile to say it somehow belongs to the nature of spacetime to do so, for if there were absolutely nothing then there would have been no nature to determine that spacetime should spring into being!
Either the necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of spacetime existed or not; if so, then it is not true that nothing existed; if not, then it would seem ontologically impossible that being should arise out of absolute non-being.
To call such spontaneous springing into being out of non-being a "quantum transition" or to attribute it to "quantum gravity" explains nothing; indeed, on this account, there is no explanation. It just happens.
Hope this helps!
Author of this thread is an IDIOT. So is all humans existed or going to be existed.
Humans and IDIOTS are synonymous.
You can't prove speculation in either way.
Words only lie.
OP has lots of energy but he fails to ask right question.
It is not about proving (agree) or disproving (disagree)...
It is about your mind. Is it clear?. Is it over cooked?.
GOD is a belief , you can't prove either way. It will continue to exist on people who wants them. It will not exist in people who do not wants them.
Our thoughts exist for a microsecond....it may not exist next second...
All these are useless waste of time..masturbating with beliefs.
Quit it humans.
